| Author | Message | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 460 Registered: 7-2009 |
Bob makes a product that saves lives. However, the key material in the product is very dangerous. There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe. The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material. The second method is more complicated. What is the product, and how does Bob make it safe? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1016 Registered: 11-2008 |
Nitroglycerine? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 461 Registered: 7-2009 |
Nitroglycerine? no | ||
| Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member Username: Sugarshane Post Number: 207 Registered: 7-2009 |
is the product something anyone can buy? or do you have to be qualified in some way to buy it? is the product related to the medical field? is it a solid? liquid? gas? is it eatable? the methods you refer to- does bob actually use both methods? the first? second? if bob destroys the dangerous material that is used in the product as suggested in the first method, is the product still usable? how is the product dangerous- is it flammable? is it sharp? is it dangerous to everyone? children? small parts involved? plastic? anything that may cause cancer? is the products sole purpose to save lives? is it a flotation device of some kind? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 463 Registered: 7-2009 |
is the product something anyone can buy? no or do you have to be qualified in some way to buy it? yes is the product related to the medical field? yes is it a solid? liquid? this one gas? is it eatable? no the methods you refer to- does bob actually use both methods? yes, but only one at a time (i.e. when he makes a unit of the product using method 1, he will not use method 2 on that unit, and vice versa) the first? second? if bob destroys the dangerous material that is used in the product as suggested in the first method, is the product still usable? yes how is the product dangerous- is it flammable? no is it sharp? no is it dangerous to everyone? yes children? so yes small parts involved? plastic? anything that may cause cancer? none of the above is the products sole purpose to save lives? yes is it a flotation device of some kind? no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1018 Registered: 11-2008 |
is the primary product poisonous? is it an acid? | ||
| Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member Username: Sugarshane Post Number: 209 Registered: 7-2009 |
so is the product in fact medication? to treat something specific? to treat multiple illnesses? is this a common medication? still used today? does this save human lives? animals? both? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 464 Registered: 7-2009 |
is the primary product poisonous? no is it an acid? I don't know, but regardless of whether it is acidic or basic, the pH is not dangerous | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1020 Registered: 11-2008 |
is the primary product explosive? frozen? does its temperature matter? Is it dangerous when touched? ingested? looked at? radiation involved? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 465 Registered: 7-2009 |
so is the product in fact medication? yes to treat something specific? yope to treat multiple illnesses? no is this a common medication? yes still used today? yes does this save human lives? animals? both | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 466 Registered: 7-2009 |
is the primary product FA - the product itself is safe if made properly, so I'll assume these questions refer to the dangerous material. If I'm wrong, let me know. explosive? no frozen? no does its temperature matter? yes Is it dangerous when touched? yes ingested? yes looked at? no radiation involved? no for clarity re: your previous questions - neither the product nor the dangerous material are poisonous nor dangerously acidic. | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1021 Registered: 11-2008 |
By "primary product" I meant the dangerous base the final product is made of. Sorry for the confusion. Could we call it "base" from now on to avoid confusion? If so, is the base hot? Or does its temperature matter only in relation to something else? Can we define it as a pure chemical element (one of the Periodic Table of Elements)? | ||
| Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member Username: Sugarshane Post Number: 210 Registered: 7-2009 |
penicillin relevant? insulin? | ||
| Sugarshane (Sugarshane)
New member Username: Sugarshane Post Number: 211 Registered: 7-2009 |
is fire involved in making the product safe? does he burn out the dangerous material? is the dangerous material natural? man made? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 467 Registered: 7-2009 |
By "primary product" I meant the dangerous base the final product is made of. Sorry for the confusion. Could we call it "base" from now on to avoid confusion? sure. If so, is the base hot? no Or does its temperature matter only in relation to something else? no, it is the temperature of the base that matters. However, beware FA. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 468 Registered: 7-2009 |
penicillin relevant? no insulin?no is fire involved in making the product safe? no does he burn out the dangerous material? no is the dangerous material natural?yes man made?no or noish | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1022 Registered: 11-2008 |
What about the Table of Elements? Is the temperature of the base lower than the usual temperature of human body? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1023 Registered: 11-2008 |
Is the temperature of the base constant all over the process of its destruction? Is the destruction chemical? Physical? Is the final product meant to be ingested? Used as ointment? Does it cure illnesses? Or is it rather used for diagnostics? Laser involved? Mercury? Thermometer? | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 228 Registered: 5-2009 |
Is the product used for vaccination? as an antidote? for diagnostics? Is anything of the following used in the production process: animals? plants? fungi? radioactive material? blood? bacteria? viruses? eggs? petrol? liquidified/solidified gas? Would direct contact with the dangerous product during the production process be likely to kill you? Injure you? Make you ill? Is the final product a medicament? Medical equipment? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 469 Registered: 7-2009 |
What about the Table of Elements? I'm not sure what you're asking. But I think the answer is no. Is the temperature of the base lower than the usual temperature of human body? yes, it should be Is the temperature of the base constant all over the process of its destruction? Good question. Yes, it should be, using current methods (both 1 and 2), and it must be for method 2. But historically (a precursor to method 1 in the puzzle), no. Is the destruction chemical? yes Physical? and yes Is the final product meant to be ingested? noish Used as ointment? no Does it cure illnesses? sometimes, but this isn't the primary purpose Or is it rather used for diagnostics? no Laser involved?no Mercury? sometimes Thermometer?yes, but only to monitor the temperature Is the product used for vaccination? yes as an antidote? no for diagnostics? no Is anything of the following used in the production process: animals? method 1: yope - cultured animal cells; method2: yes. Don't focus on this, as it's not important. plants?no fungi?no radioactive material? no blood?no bacteria? no viruses?yes eggs?method2:yes. But not important. petrol?no liquidified/solidified gas? not that I know of Would direct contact with the dangerous product during the production process be likely to kill you? It would kill me or probably you. Not Bob. Injure you?no Make you ill? Yes for me or probably you. Not Bob. Is the final product a medicament? no Medical equipment?no | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1026 Registered: 11-2008 |
Will it NOT kill Bob because he is alrady immunized? Is the base a virus? If so, is it somehow weakened to provide protection but not to be strong enough to make you ill/kill you? Does the danger involved consist in contracting a disease? Smallpox involved? Tuberculosis? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 472 Registered: 7-2009 |
Will it NOT kill Bob because he is already immunized? right. vaccine manufacturers get vaccinated in case of an accident Is the base a virus? yes If so, is it somehow weakened to provide protection but not to be strong enough to make you ill/kill you?yesish Does the danger involved consist in contracting a disease? yes Smallpox involved? Tuberculosis?neither | ||
| Markobr (Markobr)
New member Username: Markobr Post Number: 229 Registered: 5-2009 |
Rabies? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 476 Registered: 7-2009 |
Rabies? yes Now, you could probably google the answer easily from this point (or recall the general idea if you've ever taken a class that talked about vaccines) but where's the fun in that? I'm not looking for technical explanations, of course, just the general concepts, which you are perfectly able to figure out without help from google | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1035 Registered: 11-2008 |
OK, I promise not to google and to rely only on my sieve of a memory. The holes in it are quite sizeable so don't be afraid the fun will be spoyled soon. Would the second method consist in using a live vaccine? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 480 Registered: 7-2009 |
Would the second method consist in using a live vaccine? yes | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1037 Registered: 11-2008 |
"Filtered" through another animal? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 482 Registered: 7-2009 |
"Filtered" through another animal? no | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1450 Registered: 5-2003 |
The live vaccine of a different but related disease? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 483 Registered: 7-2009 |
The live vaccine of a different but related disease? yope - this idea is worth exploring | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1052 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 489 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine? yope - also worth exploring | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1053 Registered: 11-2008 |
Does Bob weaken it? If so, by diluting it? Using small doses of it? Half-killing the germs (or whatever is causing it)? Using some sort of medium to filter it? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 491 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does Bob weaken it? If so, by diluting it? no, but sort of Using small doses of it? no Half-killing the germs (or whatever is causing it)?no Using some sort of medium to filter it? no | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1458 Registered: 5-2003 |
Weakened vaccines of different but related diseases are, I believe, the traditional method of vaccination. The term itself comes from the discovery that exposure to cowpox (affecting vacines) made one immune to smallpox. Is Bob's methodology materially different from this basic concept? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 498 Registered: 7-2009 |
Weakened vaccines of different but related diseases are, I believe, the traditional method of vaccination. The term itself comes from the discovery that exposure to cowpox (affecting vacines) made one immune to smallpox. Is Bob's methodology materially different from this basic concept? yes for both methods however, there is an interesting tidbit related to the type of vaccination you describe that is not part of the puzzle, but that I will try to remember to share when you figure out method 2. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1484 Registered: 5-2003 |
Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against? Are we only trying to find method 2 at this point? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 522 Registered: 7-2009 |
Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against? method 1: yes; method 2: yesish Are we only trying to find method 2 at this point? no, both. And actually, finding method 1 might help you with method 2. But all you need to figure out for method 1 is what is meant by "destroyed" (not the tools used, but what the virus "looks" like after it's destroyed). Method 1 hint: You've already figured out that historically, changing the temperature could be involved in the process. I'll add that a different historical method was to dry the virus out, which had roughly same effect as changing the temperature. Method 1 follows the same idea as these historical methods, in a way, but there is one big difference that makes it less risky. | ||
| Jenburdoo (Jenburdoo)
New member Username: Jenburdoo Post Number: 1502 Registered: 5-2003 |
Is the difference: isolating the virus in some way? Putting it in a container. Destroyed = just dead, or something more? Is the virus still technically a virus, or has it changed into, say, an even lower form of life? I'm a touch confused at this point; can I have a recap? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 544 Registered: 7-2009 |
method 1: Is the difference: isolating the virus in some way? no Putting it in a container.no Destroyed = just dead, or something more?something more. The problem with the historical methods is that there's a chance that some of the "killed" virus isn't actually dead and could still make you sick. Method 1 does something extra to make sure that there's virtually no chance of someone getting sick Is the virus still technically a virus, or has it changed into, say, an even lower form of life? It's a dead virus. It's still a virus in that your immune system would still recognize it as a virus. But it can't make you sick. I'm a touch confused at this point; can I have a recap? Sure. RECAP, WITH HINTS You already figured out what I thought was the hard part of the puzzle: Bob makes a product that saves lives (rabies vaccine). The key material is very dangerous (it will give you rabies, which first makes you crazy and then is 100% fatal). There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe. The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material. Destroy means kill the virus in such a way that you're sure it's dead and can't be reanimated. Historically, killing the virus has been done using temperature (either high heat or freezing) or dehydration. [Interesting side note: the very first rabies vaccine was just a chunk of dried out flesh from an infected animal (a rabbit, I think). Yuck!]. The problem with these methods is that sometimes the virus isn't actually killed, it's just dormant. For example, if you dry it out, you might think it's dead, but if there's a tiny bit of moisture left in the sample, some of the virus might survive and still be able to make you sick once it is rehydrated in the vaccine. For method 1, all you have to figure out is what is the extra step taken to ensure that the virus can't make you sick even if for some reason a tiny bit of it isn't killed. The technique used isn't important to the puzzle. So if it helps you to think about one of the historical methods, you can. For example, let's say the technique for method 1 is dehydration. What is the difference between a dehydrated virus that might survive due to a tiny bit of moisture remaining in the sample, and a dehydrated virus that is still recognizable as a virus but that can't "come back to life" even if the sample wasn't dried entirely? I'm not looking for a technical explanation. It is perfectly acceptable to think of the virus as an abstract shape, a piece of paper, a small animal, or anything else that helps you form a picture in your mind. If you want to think of it as a chain of DNA, you can, but it is not necessary. There is a recap for the product, the dangerous ingredient, and method 1. Let's figure out method 1, and then I'll do a recap for method 2 (which, as I said, builds on method 1 in a way, which is really the only reason method 1 is even part of the puzzle - I wouldn't dream of asking you to figure out two entirely unrelated methods). sorry for the length...I hope that doesn't make it more confusing. I'm always torn between giving extra information, such as examples and explanations that I think will be helpful, and trying to keep it short enough that the important information doens't get lost. The short version of the recap is this: Bob makes rabies vaccines. There are many techniques he could use to kill the virus, but with each technique, there's a chance that a small amount of the virus could survive and "reanimate" to make someone sick. For method 1, he takes an extra step to make sure that there's no way the virus can reanimate. What happens to the virus? What is that extra step? In other words, at the end of the procedure, how does the virus in Bob's vaccine look different than a virus without the extra step done to it? | ||
| Kalira (Kalira)
New member Username: Kalira Post Number: 240 Registered: 2-2009 |
Forgive whatever mistake I'm about to make, but it's been a while since I was in a biology class. I may have the structure of a virus wrong, but I seem to recall there being an outer structure that encapsulates the "gooey center" of actual virus, and perhaps a delivery system as well. Does the extra step Bob takes involve: the outer structure? the virus within the structure? the delivery system? Would what he does involve altering this/these components? removing or destroying them? adding something to them? something else? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 549 Registered: 7-2009 |
Forgive whatever mistake I'm about to make, but it's been a while since I was in a biology class. I may have the structure of a virus wrong, but I seem to recall there being an outer structure that encapsulates the "gooey center" of actual virus, and perhaps a delivery system as well. not a problem. My expectations for this puzzle are such that you shouldn't have to remember anything from biology class about viruses at all. In fact, the only bit of knowledge that you need from biology class is that vaccines work by introducing something to your body so that your immune system can recognize and attack the virus later if you're ever exposed to it. But everyone asking questions has already shown that you know this already, as it's fairly common knowledge even if you haven't taken a biology class in decades Does the extra step Bob takes involve: the outer structure? the virus within the structure? It would work to destroy only this structure, but I think all parts are actually destroyed. the delivery system? This is really more detail than you need (or that I know). method 1: Would what he does involve altering this/these components? removing or destroying them? adding something to them? something else? these individual components are not relevant. Focus on the whole virus. Big hint: Like I said, you can think about the virus in abstract terms. For example, How can you alter a sheet of paper so that it's still recognizably paper but doesn't function like a sheet of paper? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1108 Registered: 11-2008 |
crumple it? burn it? put it behind a glass pane? soak it wet? deep-freeze it? | ||
| Alhucema (Alhucema)
New member Username: Alhucema Post Number: 1109 Registered: 11-2008 |
tear it to pieces? grind it? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 553 Registered: 7-2009 |
crumple it? burn it? put it behind a glass pane? soak it wet? deep-freeze it? grind it? I would argue that each of these either leaves the paper functional or renders it unrecognizable as paper. The possible exception is the glass pane idea, which works for the paper but not the vaccine. tear it to pieces? yes! this one. Your immune system can still recognize a virus and defend against it even if it (more specifically, its DNA) is cut into pieces. However, those pieces can't rejoin and become a living, functioning virus again, so they can't make you sick. For method 1, Bob uses a chemical that not only kills the virus, it cuts the virus's DNA into short segments. Method 1 solved. I will do a method 2 recap soon, but can't do it now. Until then, feel free to ask questions about it. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 560 Registered: 7-2009 |
RECAP: Bob makes a product that saves lives [Rabies Vaccine]. However, the key material in the product is very dangerous [the rabies virus, which will make you crazy and then kill you]. There are two methods that Bob can use to make the product safe. The first method is simple but counterintuitive - destroy the dangerous material [destroy = kill the virus and cut it into little pieces, thus allowing our immune systems to recognize the vaccine as a rabies virus, but preventing the virus in the vaccine from making us sick. (Technically, he uses a chemical to cut up the virus's DNA into short segments)] All that's left is the second method. Here's what you know so far: - Knowing method 1 may help you figure out method 2. - Method 2 uses a live vaccine. - Bob does not: Use a low dose of the live rabies virus Half-kill the rabies virus Use some sort of medium to filter it - The following questions are worth exploring: The live vaccine of a different but related disease? yope Does the second method include using a weakened vaccine? yope If so, by diluting it? no, but sort of Will the patient be exposed at all to any form of the disease he is being vaccinated against? yesish or yope | ||
| Kalira (Kalira)
New member Username: Kalira Post Number: 242 Registered: 2-2009 |
Does Bob end up with the same product with both methods (i.e. a vaccine made up of little pieces of rabies virus DNA)? Does Bob do something like replicate small sections of the virus's DNA? without using the actual rabies virus? (basically, just replicating the same product he gets from method 1, just more "from scratch" rather than from destroying an already living sample of the virus) Does method 2 begin with actual live rabies virus? a live related virus? no live virus? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 562 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does Bob end up with the same product with both methods (i.e. a vaccine made up of little pieces of rabies virus DNA)? no, but... Does Bob do something like replicate small sections of the virus's DNA? yesish without using the actual rabies virus? no (basically, just replicating the same product he gets from method 1, just more "from scratch" rather than from destroying an already living sample of the virus)no Does method 2 begin with actual live rabies virus? yes a live related virus?yes to yope no live virus?no | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 584 Registered: 10-2008 |
Does he fully kill a rabies virus at any point during method 2? Does he kill anything else? Does he use chemical means to change a live rabies virus into something else? Or to change something else into a live rabies virus? Is cloning relevant? | ||
| Pikachizzle (Pikachizzle)
New member Username: Pikachizzle Post Number: 399 Registered: 5-2009 |
Does method 2 use a form of rabies that doesn't affect humans? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 582 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does he fully kill a rabies virus at any point during method 2? no Does he kill anything else? no Does he use chemical means I don't know what means he uses to accomplish this method (chemical or otherwise). I only know the end result. to change a live rabies virus into something else? noish Or to change something else into a live rabies virus? noish Is cloning relevant? yes or yesish. I can't find an answer of whether it's technically considered cloning or not, but if not, is very similar. Does method 2 use a form of rabies that doesn't affect humans? yope...explore | ||
| Pikachizzle (Pikachizzle)
New member Username: Pikachizzle Post Number: 401 Registered: 5-2009 |
I was thinking, [I don't know if this makes sense], Bob uses rabies that only affects birds or dogs or himself so that he can safely study it and find a cure. | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 599 Registered: 7-2009 |
I was thinking, [I don't know if this makes sense], Bob uses rabies that only affects birds or dogs or himself so that he can safely study it and find a cure. no, Bob isn't studying anything, he only manufactures vaccines. But... "Bob uses X that only affects birds" is relevant. But X does not equal a rabies virus | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 613 Registered: 10-2008 |
In the sentence above, would X be another virus? Or a bacterium? Does this cause illness in only certain non-human animals? In only birds? Is he encouraging a virus to grow at any point? Inside a non-human host? Or maybe inside a human host? Is he reproducing a virus by means other than just having it reproduce naturally, hence the yesish to cloning? If so, is he doing this to a rabies virus? To another virus? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 611 Registered: 7-2009 |
In the sentence above, would X be another virus? yes. Canarypox. Or a bacterium? no Does this cause illness in only certain non-human animals? yes In only birds? as far as I know Is he encouraging a virus to grow at any point? yesish...follow up on this ish Inside a non-human host? yope...in non-human cells. Bird cells, I think. Or maybe inside a human host? no Is he reproducing a virus by means other than just having it reproduce naturally, yope...in cells in a lab instead of in an animal, but normal otherwise hence the yesish to cloning? no If so, is he doing this to a rabies virus? yope To another virus? yes, the canarypox virus. As far as cloning goes...if you know how cloning works, then you'll pretty much know the answer to the puzzle. If not, there's nothing you can figure out about it that wouldn't be above and beyond solving the puzzle. So I'd say just forget about the cloning, because if it was going to help you, it would have already. | ||
| Galfisk (Galfisk)
New member Username: Galfisk Post Number: 12 Registered: 9-2009 |
Does Bob insert part of the rabies gene into a bird virus, making it look like the rabies virus to the immune system, while being otherwise harmless to humans? Or put parts of the gene into a cell culture or animal, making the cells produce empty virus casings? | ||
| Noel (Noel)
New member Username: Noel Post Number: 614 Registered: 7-2009 |
Does Bob insert part of the rabies gene into a bird virus, making it look like the rabies virus to the immune system, while being otherwise harmless to humans? this is it! ******SPOILER******* Method 2 is pretty much exactly as Galfisk said. Unlike method 1, method 2 uses a live virus to make a rabies vaccine. But it doesn't make you sick because the vaccine is mostly made using a live canary pox virus, which makes birds sick but not humans, cats, or dogs. A small portion of the rabies virus is inserted into the canary pox virus. The little bit of rabies virus is a region that your immune system happens to be able to recognize, but that won't actually give you rabies. Full spoiler: Bob makes rabies vaccines. Rabies vaccines save lives (people and animals). But the most important ingredient of a rabies vaccine is the rabies virus, because that's what your immune system recognizes and remembers to protect you later. One method he uses to keep people and animals from getting rabies is counterintuitive: he destroys it by killing the virus and cutting it up into little pieces (using a chemical). A second method is to insert a little piece of live rabies virus DNA into the DNA of a live virus that doesn't make mammals sick (the canarypox virus). Thanks to everyone who stuck with this one! I think I've learned my lesson about asking puzzles I only know the surface details about. I should have known that looking for basic explanations of a situation doesn't mean I'll get basic questions -- you certainly kept me on my toes! And, I learned I'm a terrible guess of what's easy and difficult. I really thought that the hard part would be figuring out it was a vaccine, and that the rest would come quickly after that. Oh well =) Oh, and way up near the top somewhere I said I'd share a related fact to one of the questions asked. The question was whether this vaccine operated like a smallpox vaccination that is actually made of out a related virus (cowpox). It's not, but rabies technicians are vaccinated against smallpox to protect them from canarypox, even though it's not supposed to infect humans. Maybe they're trying to make sure it doesn't mutate and become able to enter the human population? | ||
| Gourami (Gourami)
Moderator Username: Gourami Post Number: 619 Registered: 10-2008 |
I've found that issues in natural science make especially good lateral puzzles, because there are so many oddities specific to one species or situation. I don't do them too often though, because, as you said, it's tough to answer everyone's questions unless you are an expert on the topic. In any case, good puzzle! |
